Data protection is a virus

The general obsession with data protection is now pandemic.

Pay attention and you’ll see opt-ins and opt-outs everywhere. No one remembers why they are there, and as defences weaken, the nation’s websites, mailings, ads and emails are becoming increasingly infected.

Charities seem to have fallen prey to a particularly virulent form of the disease.

“[Charity name] promises to respect your privacy. The data we hold is
in accordance with the Data Protection Act (1998) … [tediousness tediousness] … not disclose, or share personal information … [endless tedium] … like to keep you informed … [tedious suspicion-raising waffle] … if you do not want to receive … [oh great, here’s my way out] … ticking the box.”

But data protection (DP) rules are actually rather simple.

And more relaxed than most people realise.

On the Information Commissioners’ site, your legal obligations under the Data Protection Act (DPA) are helpfully summarised. The crucial question sits at number two on the list:

‘Do the people whose information I hold know that I've got it, and are they likely to understand what it will be used for?’

What I find time and again is that marketers are hamstrung by over-zealous legal, communications or database teams who – and this is the critical point – follow the letter and not the spirit of the law.

Black and white
Sometimes, I acknowledge, the legislation is starkly clear, and in writing this post I am not advocating that you find ways to act illegally. For example, you must have an opt-in for email or SMS contact. Period.

But don’t you also need an opt-in for telephone contact?

Not necessarily.

For cold contacts, new supporters and many existing contacts, yes.

But with existing contacts who have received calls from you in the past and haven’t asked you to stop calling, you can rely on ‘implied opt-in’. As you can see from the question above, the Information Commissioners would ask you, “how and why did you gather telephone numbers, and would the person reasonably expect a call from you?”

So what about screening against TPS?

Yes, you must screen even existing contacts against TPS (telephone preference service) – although, again, you can rely on ‘implied opt-in’ if they have received calls in the past and not complained … which means you can call these people.

OK, it’s beginning to sound complicated.

The small print
There are eight Principles, upon which hang the entire legislation, documentation and industry of data protection in the UK.

And the second is the most important when considering communicating with your audiences.

“Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.”

…which roughly translates as: “you can get and use someone’s details only if they’ll reasonably know what you’ll use them for”.

In addition, the rule above only applies if at least one of these Conditions are met, and for most marketing purposes this will be Condition 1:

“The data subject has given his consent to the processing.”

Presumably this means marketers do not need women’s consent? (Top tip to the Info Commissioners on inclusive language: edit > replace all > ‘his’ with ‘their’.) Anyway, off my feminist soapbox and on with the task in hand.

It is certainly easy to see how charities get caught in the myriad snares lurking in DP legislation.

In the document ‘Data Protection Good Practice Note – Charities and marketing’ the Info Commissioners outline how they would ideally have non-profits apply the DPA. But in setting out such good practice, they have erred towards a more literal interpretation. The following sentence is a good example:

“When you collect information from people and are in direct contact with them, such as in a phone call or on a website, you should give them an immediate opportunity to object to future contact”

Notwithstanding the point I made above about opt-ins required for electronic communication, this sentence is simply too absolute – if applied literally.

Be reasonable
There is a difference between the letter of the law, good practice, acceptable practice and bad practice or breaking the law. The latter is clearly foolish and will bring reputational and financial damage on you and your organisation.

But to zealous communications and legal teams who insist on strict adherence to the precise wording of the Act or even good practice, I say to you that as the world changes around you, such strict legalism will make your fundraisers’ jobs far more difficult than it already is – and because it will limit funds raised, it will directly threaten your charity’s services.

I say this for two reasons. First, it is clearly not possible in a piece of legislation to envisage and account for every scenario it will be applied to.

But second, and more important, you do not need to be so strict.

The following sentence from the Info Commissioners’ guidance on email marketing referring to opt-ins, and the way in which they need to be worded, is just one example that shows this:

“‘Similar products and services.’ In our view, this means ‘what products and services do you reasonably expect to hear about from this organisation’.”

‘Reasonable’ is something I have found the Info Commissioners to be.

So, to bring this already lively post to life, let me give some examples…

If someone donates to your charity for the first time, in response to a mailing, you do not need to give them an opt-out.

• Gasp!
• Yes, that’s right. As long as you aren’t planning to sell their details (in which case you would need one), the supporter would reasonably expect that you will get back in touch – to thank them and probably (given that this is your job) to ask for more money.
• They would not, however, reasonably expect you to send them something every week, call them each month and knock on their front door at Christmas

Similarly, when someone replies to a press ad that is offering information on legacies, you do not need an opt-out.

• Really?
• Yes, that’s right.
• The supporter would reasonably expect you to contact them with the information – unless they think you’re rude.
• And they would also reasonably expect that you’ll follow them up, not least to see if they have any further questions – or simply to check whether it arrived.
• Nor is it unreasonable to send them occasional updates on your work.
• They would not, however, reasonably expect to start receiving monthly appeal mailings, campaigners mailings, Christmas card catalogues and weekly phone calls.

And, just to be clear, in each of the above examples, if you wanted to call, text or email them, you would need an opt-in … although the following is sufficient: “Where you can contact me” – under the line asking them to write their email address or telephone number.

To further illustrate the dangers of over-application of the DPA to charity marketing, two recent examples come to mind.

The first is from a large national charity who, until very recently, included an opt-out on every piece of mail communication to donors. Every newsletter, appeal letter and thank you letter included a tick box, offering them the chance to become ‘no-mail’. This was lunacy. Even though supporters have the best of intentions when they opt out – “it will save them money,” they think – they invariably give less as a consequence.

The second was the enquiry form on the legacy pages of a major UK charity’s website. Beautifully designed, with award winning usability, the site’s effectiveness was ruined on the final screen. Just before hitting ‘submit’ the visitor was presented with three DP clauses. The first was an opt-in for email and telephone and the second was a lengthy explanation and an opt-out for them selling your details. But the worst shooting-themselves-in-the-foot moment came with the third, which required an opt-in: “Keep me informed of [charity name] products, offers and appeals by mail”. Somewhat unsurprisingly, most enquirers were no-mail – which meant the system flagged them as being unable to receive even the materials they had requested.

As I hope I have illustrated, the Information Commissioners are most interested in your overall treatment and protection of supporters’ data. They want to see that you will communicate with people in a way they would reasonably expect.

When your hands are tied
You could, if you really wanted to follow best practice, add a line to recruitment pieces saying something like, "We promise to look after your details in line with the Data Protection Act, and will not share personal information supplied by you with any third party organisations without your consent."

And from time to time (e.g. somewhere on your website and annually by post) you could tell existing supporters: “We promise to look after your details in line with the Data Protection Act, and will only use them to contact you about our work. If you would like to tell us how you would prefer to hear from us, please contact us here….”

Finally, at all times you must be able to demonstrate that the supporter is always able to contact you to opt out of further contact … and that you have systems in place to ensure that you can administer their wishes.

If you have specific questions – or if you can't believe that what I have written can be true – the Information Commissioners’ helpline is incredibly helpful: 08456 30 60 60. They will happily discuss any specific issue you may be facing.

As you’ll hear if you call them, one of the phrases they will use most is, “what would the customer or supporter reasonably expect?”

Very important stuff this. Interesting, isn’t it?

In opposition of ‘that’

The world of mail order has the worst offenders.

“Buy this plastic kitchen implement, and bring a professional touch to that favourite dish.”

“Order these cheap carnations for that special person in your life.”

“Watch for that look of surprise when Tiddles sees this miniature wreck in his bowl.”

That?! Which?!

‘That’ is lazy copywriting. It reveals a writer disinclined to do the hard work that is sometimes needed to paint a picture in the reader’s mind.

‘That’, and a list of equally over-used words and hackneyed phrases, is, I am horrified to report, beginning to appear in wider marketing copy. Even the sacred turf of fundraising is under threat.

If you have any influence at all in the creative process in your organisation, please join me in driving this menace from our land.

Top3: What commercial marketers can teach their charity peers

Just like commercial marketers, charity marketers are in the business of building brands and generating income profitably. What the best commercial marketers do very well, however, is to maintain a single-minded focus on performance.

And that manifests itself in several ways. In the second in a series of Top3 posts, I shall consider what some of these are.

At Rapp, there is a ‘testing bible’ that contains over 25 years of testing on NSPCC direct marketing. I remember in an agency meeting one day, sat overlooking Hammersmith bridge, asking why the NSPCC used plain outer envelopes – featuring no more than the logo.

“Ah,” came the reply, “five years ago we completed a series of tests that showed that a plain OE uplifted response.”

There it was. My perception that they were weaker was an unfounded assumption. (Although in fact we had tested them at ChildLine and found that plain outers only worked occasionally.)

“But in fact,” they continued, “we’ve seen that ChildLine’s outers for lower value segments almost always feature headlines or some other artwork. And they work well, from what we can gather.”

I confess that I felt a little smug.

“So we’re going to test them.”

The reason I dwell on that episode in working with Rapp is that except for some of the larger charities – especially those with very experienced DM managers – most charities are not good at testing.

Some simply make assumptions and do not test. They follow their heart, swayed by a moving concept presentation, or their own preferences. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.

Of course there are still exceptions, but commercial marketers generally test more rigorously. From something as basic as only changing one variable at a time, to more complex testing such as subtle home page variations on a website.

US luxury goods store Neiman Marcus has been incredibly successful online, and growth has far outstripped offline growth in recent years … imagine buying a £4,000 handbag via mail order! But the success is due in no small part to the rigour of the testing. Every minor tweak to the home page is tested with AB testing – i.e. one visitor to the site gets homepage A, whilst the next sees homepage B.

Similarly, in the UK, lastminute has developed a testing matrix that splits visitors to the site into one of six segments. They have found that this enables them to test any combination of variables and ensures the homepage works the best it possibly can.

And this gives a clue to a related, but separate, point. In general, commercial marketers only make changes or take action when something is proven. In my experience, charity marketers make decisions more subjectively, e.g. “I think we should change the colour of the ‘donate now’ button; red looks horrible.” But commercial marketers are much more likely to be heard saying, “our conversion rates are falling slightly; I wonder if we should change the colour or size of the ‘submit’ button; let’s test different versions.”

Nevertheless, sometimes even the best testing is insufficient to prevent poor results. However, commercial marketers are – generally – quicker to pull the plug than charity folks. They are better at facing up to reality, and chopping out poor performing parts of their programme (and staff for that matter).

They also begin the fight-back a little quicker. Contingency plans are implemented straight away, with pre-determined budgets. Energy and focus are ramped up, and they will naturally work even harder until things turn around.

Sadly, this is often not the case in charities. They are sometimes not even on top of their numbers until several weeks down the line. By the time they grasp that failure is upon them, their next campaign is ready – using the same formula.

In a way, the Top3 things that commercial marketers can teach non-profit marketers are very closely linked. And they are more about professional discipline than about tactics or techniques:

1. Testing rigorously
2. Rarely doing anything unless it’s proven
3. Monitoring performance – when they do take risks, they ensure results and data will be immediately available, they will monitor them and they have strategies in place to manage the various outcomes.

Charity marketers often show creativity and innovation, but those qualities alone will not lead to the greatest success. The perception that the sector can sometimes be somewhat amateur in its overall approach is not entirely unjustified.

Which Top3 would you suggest?

Break the rules

I saw this ad in the back of a cab.

What struck me is that according to the rule book, you can’t get much worse creative. Difficult typeface to read. All upper case. Upside down!

But it works.

It reminded me that consideration of target audience comes above everything else.

Five minutes in a taxi is plenty of time to gaze, work it out, absorb the message.

Genius.

Next time you’re developing creative, sit back for a moment and think about which rules you could break.

Keep on your toes

My wife says that unless you can teach a group about a subject in three bullet points, you don’t understand it.

Her logic (and temperament) become inconsistent when I suggest that I understand her but couldn’t possibly sum her up in three bullet points.

Still, her assertion often comes to mind when I think about the fast pace of change in the worlds of fundraising and marketing.

Some might argue I need to get out more, but from time to time I challenge myself and glance through the IDM’s syllabus for the Diploma in Direct and Interactive Marketing or conference outlines, such as the IoF’s Strategic Fundraising Management conference.

I ask myself whether I could stand up and speak on all of those topics if called on at short notice. And I set about plugging any gaps in my knowledge.

Try it.

Top3: what charity marketers can teach their commercial peers

Admittedly, there is a swathe of charity marketing that is muddled, wasteful and not strategic.

However, it would be grossly inaccurate to deny that in many instances, charity marketers use more sophisticated and more effective techniques than their commercial counterparts.

This is the first in a series of 'Top3' posts, in pairs, using the format ‘what A can teach B', followed by, 'what B can teach A’.

Here’s my suggested trio of things the Dark Side could learn from non-profit marketers.

Personalisation
Basic, huh? But how many times have you received communication from companies who appear to pay no attention to who you are?

There are so many good examples from charity marketing to draw on, but one in particular comes to mind.

A couple of years ago Bluefrog’s data planners started introducing ‘ultra-personalisation’ with various clients. This is where each mailing, telephone script or digital communication contains details personalised to that individual.

From a simple reference to the number of years the donor has supported, to relating the number of doctors in a large rural area in Uganda to the equivalent number of doctors in the nearest town to where the donor lives, this has steadily increased value across the donor spectrum.

Segmentation
I have been banking online for nearly a decade. Every year of that with the Co-operative Bank. Why, then do I still get statements or letters through the post with leaflets promoting online banking?

Here’s an idea, Co-op: split the mailing into two segments; A. already bank online, B. don’t bank online. Marginal increase in production costs but a saving on print and a saving on customer irritation.

Of course, the likes of Tesco do segment - into many thousands of distinct segments in their case - and create carefully tailored messaging to each segment.

But charity appeals are among the most consistently complex and effective models of segmentation. Not only are donors split by simple value bands, they are also often segmented by recency, type of giving, number of relationships, contact preferences, age and propensity. Among many more.

At Bluefrog, we have for several years also advocated segmentation by low-value and mid/high-value donors. The proposition is often the same, but when served different creative, the latter group responds radically differently.

Although costs increase, net income always goes up – sometimes doubling.

Early commercial models include BA’s Club World, but such communication products are still relatively rare.

Thanks
Give to charity and you get a warm feeling. Some charities mess it up, by bombarding donors or conveying wastefulness, but on the whole, people know they will feel good if they give (through meeting their donor needs).

Charities who really tap into that do so by calling on a host of techniques – perhaps most importantly of all being the thank you.

Send the same generic thank you time after time, and donors will switch off. The best charity marketers know that, and certainly at Bluefrog we advise a fresh thank you letter be written with each new appeal or communication, to be ready as soon as the gifts begin arriving.

If you buy a new car, you expect a certain level of attention – although a fawning, sickly ego stroke takes it too far.

But imagine if commercial marketers said ‘thank you’ with every purchase, in the same way even a small donation is received with gratitude by most non-profits? Particularly online, there is so much scope for personalised, relevant thank yous and feedback requests – why, then, do so many insist on regurgitating the ‘transaction confirmed’ messages they wrote in 1998?!

What do you think? Which aspects of non-profit marketing would make it into your top three?

Two weeks in. 2009: the challenge you can overcome?

This post from The Agitator got me thinking.

Reflecting on the knee-jerk reaction of some fundraisers to cut back in the face of recession, Roger comments: "The most practical course of education for most fundraisers would be experience on a well-run farm.

"They would learn the cost of not investing in seed corn (donor acquisition) … they would understand that an investment in weeding (donor cultivation) and good fertilizer (information and accountability for donors) is essential for sustainability.

"And, if they were fortunate enough to work on a farm with an orchard, they would come to understand that it takes three, sometimes four, or even five years to bring in a profitable harvest of fruit from newly planted and continually pruned trees."

Bluefrog’s experience in the past four months has shown us that despite the naysayers it is possible to fundraise successfully in the gloom.

Three conclusions stand out to me:

1. Keep recruiting. We saw Christmas mail acquisition for a cancer charity perform as well as ever before.
2. Keep asking. A Christmas appeal for a homelessness charity beat target by 30%.
3. Push legacies. I’m not talking about a ‘give now, pay later’ message; just a straight forward promotion of gifts in Wills. Every legacies campaign we’ve run with clients in the past six months has beaten expectations – most recently for a development charity.

However, don’t use recession as a lever. One test we ran with a medical research charity showed that when the recession was mentioned it lowered average gifts.

Another post from The Agitator. Tom asks what makes a ten-year donor. As he suggests, January 2009 perhaps more than any other new year before is the moment to find out.

What clues are there among loyal donors as to how to improve retention? And in particular, are long-term supporters lapsing now – or giving at lower amounts than usual?

We know that legacy propensity leaps when someone’s been around for a decade – by seven times for one children’s charity client. And that seems to confirm that there is something special about this group – their continued giving is more than simple inertia.

So go on! Talk to them, seek feedback from them and run analysis on their giving histories.

After all, some of them will have been giving since the last recession – or even longer.

Why fundraising is like making cappuccino

“Grande skinny caramel macchiato, extra hot, with three shots, extra cream, marshmallows, double vanilla and a dash of cinnamon” is heard rather too often for my liking.

This is sacrilege against the art of coffee making.

And I use the word ‘art’ advisedly. The perfect espresso is created only when the following six elements meet in harmony:

• A perfectly maintained and spotlessly clean espresso machine
• A quality blend of perfectly roasted, fresh coffee beans
• A grind that is neither too course nor too fine
• A carefully judged dose of the ground coffee
• A tamping technique that is neither too firm nor too light
• A portafilter tightened just enough to keep the coffee compressed and the steam pressure in

And then to craft a cappuccino, the densely foamed, steamed but not-too-hot milk is added, so that the following rough proportions are achieved:

• A third espresso
• A third milk
• A third foamed milk

The best coffee in Shoreditch, if you find yourself in Bluefrog’s neck of the woods, is to be found at Food Hall, on Old Street.

Each cup is given the attention that a sculptor would give a masterpiece carving. And take-away is as good as drink-in … although a purist would argue that cappuccino cannot properly be drunk from a paper cup.

Am I sounding pretentious yet?

Time to infuse [sorry] fundraising into this.

Raising money
Why compare coffee and fundraising? Well, truth be told, simply because I love coffee. But bear with me and you’ll see that there are some really helpful parallels.

First, the espresso machine. This is your fundraising department and as you know, if that’s not working well, everything else is doomed. The metaphor can be taken further, however.

Espresso machines work under incredible pressure, and in a similar way, fundraising departments work with an ongoing challenge to find budget, high demands from Trustees, and a constant strain to develop the next target-beating campaign.

But the best Gaggia won’t make good coffee if it is neglected. And NCVO’s Third Sector Skills Research published last July was just one report to lament a skills shortage in fundraising. Unless we invest in developing skills, our fundraising will get more and more watered down.

“Credit crunch”, I hear you shout. Indeed, and several major players are certainly feeling more crunch than credit at the start of 2009, but scheme’s like the IoF’s Fundraising Learning Online are to be applauded, in making basic training affordable.

One thing remains unavoidable in a recession: those who continue to invest through the hard times will emerge ahead of the pack.

And so onto the next element: coffee beans. The basic ingredient. In fundraising that’s your strategy. It doesn’t matter what you do with a poor strategy; it is still a poor strategy, and it will only get you so far.

Adrian Sargeant’s regular sessions at IoF and IFC conferences on building a fundraising strategy give the basics. I’d hazard a guess, however, that fewer than half of the top-500 fundraising departments have developed a strategy with even that much thoroughness.

Cranfield School of Management run great courses on strategy development, and they can sometimes work with charities on a consultancy basis.

The grind, number three on the list, is your target audience. Not that I’m suggesting that donors are a grind.

In coffee making, it is important that the ground coffee is neither too course nor too fine. So, too, in defining your various audiences, it is important neither to view them as too homogenous a group, nor to break them into thousands of small segments.

The key, of course, is to understand your audience. To really understand what each set of donors – or prospective donors – is like: what motivates them, how do they give and how can you build relationships with them? There are myriad resources out there to help get into donors’ minds – CharityBloggers, for example.

But the best technique of all – and I aim this comment mainly at direct marketers, who, I’m sorry to say, are generally useless at this – is to speak to donors or read their correspondence.

In a brief spell in commercial brand marketing, before coming to Bluefrog, one of the brands I oversaw was Listen2. Primary audience: 65+. Not only does my iPod now contain some Mantovani and Vera Lynn, I made sure I spent time opening post and in the call centre.

The dose comes next and in my mind this equates to the offer or proposition. Clearly, this comes after understanding your audience, but it is nearly as important.

I’ve seen ads bomb for lack of attention to what the audience will be likely to do (e.g. direct debit ask when a cash ask would have been better).

Successful trust fundraisers will tell you that unless you really understand what the Trust is looking to support – and precisely which aspect of your work will push their buttons – no amount of hard work on the application will get a result.

Corporate partners, similarly, are usually looking for the right type of charity partnership.

And what you tell donors their money can achieve is equally critical.

The Prostate Cancer Charity’s Research Action Fund that Bluefrog created, works very well as a high value donor recruitment tool. And this is mainly because it maps precisely onto the sort of work the prospective donors want to support.

It is perhaps a stretch to see how tamping – the next element – equates to creative. But that’s possibly because not many people have used an espresso machine.

The skilled use of a tamper, to compress the ground coffee into the filter, needs something of a creative flair to get just right. I hope the next time you buy a coffee you get to see this in action.

In fundraising, whether it is community fundraisers sending invitations to a carol concert, major donor key workers chatting to someone at an event or the acquisition team in direct marketing developing a new DRTV ad, the message must be put across effectively.

Marie Curie’s Great Daffodil Appeal is an interesting example. For such a well-loved brand, warmly embodied in yellows and blues, opting for black as the primary colour for this annual appeal was a brave move. Blacks and greys evoke death, which for a cancer care charity is upfront but also seems a little risky.

It looked very nice on big cross-track posters in the Tube. But one can’t help wondering what the community fundraising volunteers, like those in the pictures, prefer wearing – black or blue. And what do individual donors think?

Finally, timing – when to tighten and stop tightening the filter holder. Often fixed, e.g. around Christmas, timing is rarely given enough thought. There is a tendency – if one thinks about timing at all – to try to out-do the competition and move an appeal a bit earlier.

Christmas card catalogues in August? Of course. And if you don’t get yours out in August too, you’ll lose sales. How long before someone tries July or even June?

Admittedly, you only have limited scope on testing timing, as your hand will often be forced by what other departments or competitors are doing.

Email is one area where testing is both possible and worthwhile – assuming you have sufficient volumes of responsive data. A few years ago, I heard a consensus emerging that Tuesday morning or Thursday lunchtime were the best times to send an email. But that has now changed, and the clear advice from digital experts is to do your own testing.

As I said elsewhere, from a stewardship point of view, the timing of feedback and thank you messages will be very important as the recession deepens. Specifically, I recommend now!

Frothy coffee
Cappuccino is anathema to true espresso lovers. Some argue that once milk – or even hot water – enters the dark nectar, it is ruined.

Others, however, enjoy delving into the velvety softness, allowing the warmth and strength to be drawn through.

In a similar – but less suggestive – way, a contrast can be drawn between fundraisers who see themselves as solitary espresso and those who strive to achieve a cappuccino-like mix. The former keep their head down and concentrate on the task in hand. Sometimes brilliant, often a little weak or bitter.

I would argue that the latter group, however, are more consistent.

They turn espresso into something greater, by mixing one third themselves, one third creative agencies and consultancies, and one third peer networks and industry bodies like the Institute. Not that I would suggest that the IoF is frothy and full of hot air.

Although they risk becoming a little bland, fundraisers who seek input from others and build upon the experience of peers and the industry stand a much better chance of being successful.

Donor needs
But going back to the “grande skinny caramel macchiato, extra hot, etc…”, maybe Starbucks and their 20,000 variations on a cup of coffee are right on the money. What they do is to recognise that customers have needs, and the most important of all is to be treated as an individual – to be given what you want in return for your money.

And anyone who’s read Mark Phillips’ post on donor needs will immediately see the parallel.

As Mark says, donors want to know what a charity has done with their money, rather than read about what the charity does (or what a corporate partner has given, or what policy statement they’re issuing); it's a very subtle difference, but a very important one.

But how do you implement that in practice?

At the risk of being clichéd, I shall draw this post to a close with a reference to Barack Obama’s astounding fundraising success.

As Nick Burne comments in PF, Obama succeeded because he, ‘made the campaign about me’.

Nick observes: ‘A statement on the front and top of Obama's website read: “I'm asking you to believe. Not just about my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I'm asking you to believe in yours." And it wasn't just a statement. He backed it up by giving me ways to get involved online. I could be a hero – part of the change. It was about me, my friends and family, and who I could influence.’

And in September 2008 alone he raised a record-breaking $150m, largely from ordinary Americans, primarily because he understood their needs.

Interference

Performance = Potential – internal interference – external interference

…or so the management theory goes.

This one works well if you’re mind-gyming yourself, i.e. when you’re talking yourself through a challenging situation, such as working to a deadline or when you’re working through conflict.

Mental self-control is critical if you’re aiming to perform to a high standard. And when you train yourself, you begin to notice the external interference, e.g. the negativity of others or the unexpected meeting that puts you under more pressure.

You also learn to notice the internal interference, such as your own doubts, tiredness or stress. And that’s the very moment in which you need to draw on your strength to put that interference aside.

Listen, you’re good. You know you can get through whatever situation you’re facing. Left to get on with it, you’ll ace it.

Understanding interference is also helpful when your team fades on you occasionally.

Building on see > do > get, if you discipline yourself to see that each individual has high potential, you can end up wondering why they under perform sometimes – which, let’s be honest, no amount of positive thinking can conceal.

So what are you to do? Well, given that we’ve seen how coaching yourself through challenges can help, it is nearly as simple as applying it to the people you’re leading.

But only ‘nearly’ as simple. You’re not a rugby coach, and your team may react unfavourably to a pep talk. Rather, you can employ one of a range of techniques that help them to mind-gym themselves.

First, listen, and make sure you understand what’s interfering with their potential – is it internal or external? Chances are, it’s some internal interference, fuelled by external interference such as change, job insecurity or poor management in your organisation. Tell them how you see the situation, or how you dealt with something similar. In time, you can even talk them through the concept of the mind gym.

Finally, get involved and be seen to be working as hard they are, conveying a drive towards a common purpose, and leading your whole team towards high performance and strong motivation.

See > Do > Get

It is hard to work with dimwits.

It is hard to lead idiots.

It is hard to manage incompetents.

Especially when you're angry with them.

Especially when one or two of them really should go, for the greater good.

But is is essential that you do. Otherwise your feelings spill out and seed discontent, which in turn can seed mutiny.

Sounds extreme but I've seen it time and again.

Happily, there is a solution.

SEE > DO > GET

This is another of those annoying rules of management that sound silly but are remarkably true. My thanks again to performance coach Struan Robertson for helping me improve my management with this.

If you allow yourself to see your staff as incompetent idiots (SEE), you begin treating them as such and expecting nothing more than that from them (DO). And it is therefore no surprise if that's all you get from them (GET).

If, however, you discipline yourself to see each of them as potentially high-achieving members of your dream team, you will begin to talk to them and treat them as such. And it will probably surprise you when they perform well.

In fact, in time they'll excel.

Sounds too simplistic to be true doesn't it?

You will certainly still need to deal with one or two people whose performance or negativity has the potential to drag everyone else down, but I promise that you'll be happy you adopted this mantra.

And your people will appreciate it too.

Clearly, it begins with the decision to see them differently, and when you take this step, another hidden benefit emerges. The mantra could be expanded as follows...

SEE > FEEL > DO > GET

...you start to feel better about working with them.

Developing mental self control like this is what I like to call 'mind-gyming'. (Wish I'd registered mindgym!)

When you mind-gym yourself, coaching yourself through challenges, you take your performance to a different level. And this is never more valuable than when you're managing people. How you are on the inside affects how you are on the outside. And people notice it.

So start 2009 with a new resolve to SEE everyone differently, measured by their potential not by their shortcomings.

The power of the image

Strange that the first thing I write on photography begins with an illustration – albeit a photo of one.

This image deserves attention for many reasons.

It is among the best examples in history of the illustration genre of imagery. Clean and simple, with powerful use of colour to capture shadow and detail.

And its use among political campaigning seems very fitting. As does the way this particular photograph captures the gritty hard work of the campaign trail.

But it is also a good place to start looking at what makes good photography. If I were to speak of some of the essential components of a good photo, portraiture would be a good place to start.

The eyes are on the top third. In fact, Barack’s eyes each sit on the intersection of the top horizontal third with each of the two vertical thirds.

(Draw an imaginary horizontal line, one third of the way down the picture, and another two thirds of the way down. Now draw vertical lines one third and two thirds of the way across the page. These are your thirds, and any photo is magically transformed if the focal point – or just the horizon or a figure or a line – lies on them. Especially on the intersections.)

Next, see the way he’s looking from left to right, tilting his head and looking into the picture. In fact, his left eye, sitting on the intersection of the top and right hand thirds, otherwise known as optical dead centre, is the point where one’s eye is drawn in the image.

Perfect.

We could dwell on the tight crop and shallow depth of field to make the background melt away, but that would be unnecessary, as the eyes have it.

PROGRESS and HOPE are both captured in Shepard Fairey’s iconic image. And this illustrator’s rise to even greater fame – let alone that of his subject – is well deserved.

Imagine what he could do with a camera.

My crunch hunch

Optimism is dead. Regarding the wider economy, at least.

You no longer hear the occasional optimist saying things will pick up in the spring. Everyone agrees that things are going to get worse.

As winter suddenly bites in January and February, the only thing getting brighter will be the sky as the days gradually lengthen. The economic outlook will get darker.

The post-New Year lull can often feel a bleak time of year but in 2009 it could be dreadful.

Over 80 percent of marketers are investing in CRM because of the economic downturn but this sudden focus on relationship marketing comes too late.

With brand and product homogeny, and the relentless growth of online retailers fueling the Long Tail, differentiation by customer service is increasingly important. A concept widely promoted in the 80s, it is sad that so few brands really embrace it.

Charity brands from the NSPCC down are losing direct debit donors at an increasing rate, and commercial brands such as Dixons are reporting rapidly dropping sales. The sorry demise of Woolworths, it has been said, is only the beginning.

Improved customer service seems to be one of the few ways left to avoid catastrophe as the recession bites.

(Interesting, then, that just at this critical moment BT axes 10,000 posts ... and if you have ever had the misfortune of calling BT Customer Services, you will agree that this move does not inspire confidence in future levels of service.)

Marketers must start to engage with customers – really engage, by taking time out to sit on the phones and take Customer Services calls for example! Similarly, fundraisers must start to engage with donors, for example by regularly spending time with Supporter Services, opening post and seeing what they're saying about their appeals.

In September, CAF and ACEVO reported that 88% of charity CEOs expect income to drop over the coming year. And recent press reports appear to be confirming this outlook.

While 62% of charities expect to increase fundraising investment to mitigate the effects of the recession, according to IoF/PwC/CFDG's Managing in a Downturn research, some charities are already on a slippery downward slope. They are the ones whose copies of Relationship Fundraising have been gathering dust for the past decade, while they’ve persisted with the charity equivalent of the assault on Falluja.

So what can you do to stem the attrition of donors, and protect your income in 2009?

If I were back in that position, I would seek to communicate – at least twice between January and March – the following key messages…

“THANK YOU”

“THIS IS WHAT WE’VE DONE WITH YOUR MONEY”

‘Your money’ is the vital phrase. And it is one that I think deserves a moment’s reflection.

This slightly old fashioned notion of it being ‘my money’ is very relevant in times of recession. It’s my money. Why should I continue to give donations on the vague promise that, ‘this is what you will do with it’?

I want to see what you did do with it.

Otherwise, I’m not so sure about giving you any more.

As Karen Osborne puts it, this ‘delivery on the promise’ is what donors want – and it is the best way to unlock their next gift.

The good news is that Bluefrog has developed several solutions to this challenge that are already reaping rewards for clients.

My hunch is that unless charities lead on this message in 2009 they will end the year with fewer than half the active donors they have now.

Keep the change

Managing change well can result in stronger, better teams. Managing it badly just produces a box of bad or bitter apples, with many good apples falling out along the way.

Leading people through change is always tricky. Whilst there will usually be around ten percent who are positive, there will always be another ten percent who are negative.

This latter group – the ‘mood hoovers’ – need skilful handling, including the judgement on when not to waste any more time on them. This is especially true when one of the aims of the process of change might be to shed this ten percent.

But it is the remaining 80% who need most careful handling.

When it’s all over, you need them to hit the track sprinting.

My thanks to performance coach Struan Robertson for what follows. I was lucky enough to be coached by Struan for a couple of years.

To emerge from change with your 80% intact, you need to start with a plan.

And your plan needs to fill in some blanks. It needs to fill in the blanks in people’s heads.

When change begins, everyone has questions. But the answers are blank – unless you are ready to fill them in for them.

If you don’t, the mood hoovers will be only too pleased to help.

The questions people have can be summarised with five Ps:

• Picture
• Purpose
• Process
• Payoff
• Part I play

Picture
Your people – let’s call them changelings – appreciate knowing what’s going on. It is incredibly stressful to be in the midst of something over which you have little control and about which you know nothing. You won’t be able to tell them everything, sure, but you can convey that you are telling them as much as possible.

Changelings need to see where this is going.

Purpose
Why? Why is this happening? Why are things changing?

People are amazing. If they can see why something’s happening, they can adjust much more quickly than you’d imagine.

Changelings need to know.

Process
If you’re restructuring or merging with another organisation – or simply introducing a new procedure – your changelings will react much better if they know roughly what will happen when.

They will also stick with you through the various stages if they know how things fit together.

Payoff
Will it be worth it?

Or if I run with you through this process, if I back you on this, will I regret it?

In many ways, changelings need to answer this for themselves, but you need to give them enough to go on. And it needs to be more than empty reassurance.

Changelings aren’t daft.

Part I play
This is the most important P.

If I can’t see how I might influence the outcome, I will start to switch off.

Changelings need to feel involved, and as with Payoff, they should be able to fill this one in themselves. You have to make it clear that they need to engage.

And this leads nicely onto another dimension of managing change: coaching staff through it. For the mathematically minded, the following equation states an immutable law of change…

EVENT + RESPONSE = OUTCOME

A changeling [often] has no control over the EVENT.

But they have 100% control over their RESPONSE.

A simplistic but insightful analogy is that of the brown bug.

A brown bug lived in a brown field, and everything was familiar. The brown bug was good at being brown – surviving and thriving.



One day the field turned green. Being a brown bug in a green field was not good. Predators were drawn to her and potential mates avoided her.



So the brown bug had a choice: leave and find another brown field or stay and become a green bug.

She decided to stay and embrace the change. And as it turned out, things were much better in the green field. Food was much more plentiful – and happily, potential mates were very fit indeed.



A little trivial for most business changes, but the principle is sound: each person can choose how they respond, and if they respond as ‘change agents’, i.e. actively and positively engaged, you have a great team.

In summary, it really boils down to conveying three things to your teams:

1. that they have been considered
2. that they are appreciated
3. that you want them to be onboard

Go on! Lead people through change.

What is genius?

Well this is...


As is this...


Genius is the ability - and inclination - to look at something through your lens and turn it into something new.

Or to come up with something totally new.

Most people focus on ability, and there are myriad blogs, books and videos about increasing your ability. But true genius emerges only when you have the inclination to let it out.

Consciously switch your head on, open your eyes and ears, plug into it.

Moonlighting - sheer betrayal

18 months is a long time to be shackled in charity HR bureaucracy.

Endless 121s, consultation meetings, capability procedures and finally disciplinary procedures. All in an attempt to ascertain why a previously satisfactory, if a little dull, manager had suddenly unplugged from the grid.

Even his team weren't sure what he was doing - working three days from home and only two in the office left plenty of room for speculation.

The best explanation I could come up with was that his wife must have some form of mental illness.

But no amount of guesswork could prepare me for the shocking discovery that he and his not-ill wife had set up an ad agency from home ... highlighting its 'ethical' credentials.

But moonlighting is hard to spot unless you micromanage - especially if, as in this case, the individual does just enough to avoid dismissal. There were so many other competing priorities that I never had long enough to focus on this issue in enough detail. If I had, I might have spotted the inconsistencies, and may have saved his team twelve months of frustration.

Sadly, one thing's now sure. His betrayal of his team means my starting point is "no" if someone asks for flexible working.